Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 135 references

Ab-Initio Approach to Many-Body Quantum Spin Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ML-MCTDH reproduces exact spin dynamics for Heisenberg models in 1D and 2D, including two-point correlations where DTWA fails.

desk verdict Useful benchmark-driven extension of ML-MCTDH to spin dynamics, with solid exact comparisons but overclaimed 'exactness' and missing SPF convergence scans. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13190 v3 pith:KWEKTCZQ submitted 2024-11-20 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-ph

Aditya Dubey , Zeki Zeybek , Fabian Köhler , Rick Mukherjee , Peter Schmelcher This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords ML-MCTDHspindynamicsHeisenbergmodelIsingXYZdiscretetruncatedWignerapproximationentanglementgrowthlong-rangeinteractions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that multilayer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree (ML-MCTDH) can accurately simulate long-time quantum spin dynamics in Heisenberg models, including the Ising and XYZ limits with power-law and disordered couplings. It claims ML-MCTDH reproduces exact analytical results for one- and two-body observables in 1D lattices and in 2D nearest-neighbor lattices, and in the anisotropic XYZ model it matches exact diagonalization where the discrete truncated Wigner approximation (DTWA) drifts or fails. The practical payoff would be a first-principles numerical tool that tracks two-point correlations, such as $\Delta \hat{S}_x = \langle \hat{S}_x^2 \rangle - \langle \hat{S}_x \rangle^2$, at long times in regimes where semiclassical approximations and entanglement-restricted methods give out.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ML-MCTDH wavefunction ansatz: a hierarchical tree in which each node groups several spins into a small set of time-dependent basis functions, with both the expansion coefficients and the basis functions propagated through the Dirac-Frenkel variational principle. This replaces the exponentially large spin basis with a controlled truncation whose adequacy is monitored through natural populations (eigenvalues of the one-body density matrices) and through the entanglement entropy. That tree structure, rather than any problem-specific approximation, is what the paper credits for the agreement with analytical and exact-diagonalization benchmarks.

What would settle it

Repeat the reported quenches while doubling the number of time-dependent basis states per node and check whether the curves for $\langle \hat{S}_x \rangle$ and $\Delta \hat{S}_x$ change; any visible shift in a case the paper reports as exactly reproduced would falsify the convergence claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the ML-MCTDH representation — a tree of time-dependent basis functions whose sizes are chosen per node — captures the post-quench dynamics of $\langle \hat{S}_x \rangle$ and $\Delta \hat{S}_x$ exactly for 1D Ising chains with interaction exponents $\alpha = 0, 3, 6$, for the disordered Ising case at $\alpha = 3$ and $\alpha = 6$, and for the XYZ model in 1D across those interaction ranges. In 2D it reproduces the reported dynamics for nearest-neighbor Ising and XYZ lattices, with the paper noting minor deviations for the XYZ case. Across every tested case, ML-MCTDH is more faithful for the two-point correlation function than DTWA, which typically captures only short-time or qualitative behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the preselected tree shapes and fixed numbers of time-dependent basis states are large enough to converge the dynamics, with convergence judged by visual agreement with benchmarks and by natural populations rather than by systematic scans over basis sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Ising models, ML-MCTDH reproduces the exact time evolution of $\langle \hat{S}_x \rangle$ and $\Delta \hat{S}_x$ for systems beyond exact diagonalization, including $L=32$ chains with power-law couplings and a $L=128$ nearest-neighbor chain.
  • In the XYZ model, ML-MCTDH tracks both one- and two-point observables over the full simulated time, whereas DTWA is reliable only at short times for one-point observables and fails for two-point observables.
  • In the disordered Ising model with $\alpha = 3$ and $\alpha = 6$, ML-MCTDH remains exact, and its deviations in the all-to-all case are attributed to needing more time-dependent basis states rather than to a fundamental failure of the method.
  • The rate and shape of entanglement growth after a quench can serve as a convergence diagnostic: slow or size-independent growth signals that a modest basis suffices, while fast growth toward the volume-law maximum signals that more basis states are needed.
  • This positions ML-MCTDH as a candidate tool for long-time correlation dynamics in anisotropic spin models, which are hard for semiclassical methods and for matrix-product-state based methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that a systematic scan over time-dependent basis sizes in the disordered all-to-all case would probably reveal a sharp resource threshold, since it already notes that the required basis approaches its maximum there.
  • A natural extension the paper names as outlook is to apply the same ansatz to dynamical quantum phase transitions, where two-point correlations are the discriminating observables and semiclassical approximations are fragile.
  • The convergence diagnostic based on entanglement growth could be turned into an adaptive algorithm that adds basis states on the fly when natural populations spread, something the paper does not demonstrate.
  • A head-to-head efficiency comparison with tensor-network methods on 2D lattices would be needed to locate ML-MCTDH's practical advantage, since the paper benchmarks against DTWA and exact results rather than against other scalable numerical methods.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the multilayer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree (ML-MCTDH) method to simulate quench dynamics of spin-1/2 Heisenberg models in the Ising and XYZ limits, with long-range power-law interactions, disorder, and one- and two-dimensional lattices. Benchmarking against analytical solutions and exact diagonalization, the authors report that ML-MCTDH reproduces one- and two-body observables, especially two-point correlations, more accurately than the discrete truncated Wigner approximation (DTWA). The paper also analyzes entanglement growth and connects it to the convergence behavior of ML-MCTDH. The main claim is that ML-MCTDH provides an accurate and controllable framework for generic many-body spin dynamics.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper would be a valuable benchmark study showing that an established quantum-dynamics method from molecular physics—ML-MCTDH—can be applied effectively to spin-lattice quench dynamics, including long-range interactions and disorder, where tensor-network methods are limited by entanglement growth. The strengths are the use of external exact references (analytical solutions for the Ising model and exact diagonalization for XYZ) and the absence of parameter fitting to the target observables, which provides genuine ground-truth benchmarking. The comparison with DTWA is also useful because it quantifies the advantage of a variational many-body treatment over a semiclassical one. However, the central 'exact reproduction' claims rest on a convergence assumption that is not demonstrated, which currently limits the force of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III and Appendix A] The central claim that ML-MCTDH reproduces the exact dynamics for the Ising and XYZ models is supported only by visual overlap with benchmark curves, with no systematic convergence study over the SPF counts (m(1;k), m(2;k)) listed in Appendix A. The tree structures and SPF numbers are fixed and stated, but never varied to demonstrate that the results are converged. The natural-population analysis in Fig. 4 is necessary but not sufficient: truncation error in a specific observable can remain significant even when the least-dominant natural populations are small, because the variational subspace may omit important correlations without any small population weight. This is load-bearing because the paper's 'exact' claims depend on the chosen basis being converged.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 3(a,d)] The admitted deviations for the disordered all-to-all Ising case (alpha=0) are attributed to 'insufficient time-dependent basis states' in the text, but no calculation with increased SPFs is shown to make the deviations vanish. Without such a scaling test, the attribution is unverified, and it undermines the blanket statement in Sec. IV that ML-MCTDH 'becomes exact' for the Ising model with power-law interactions including the alpha=0 edge case. The authors should provide a convergence scan for this case, showing that increasing the SPF count systematically reduces the deviation from the exact result.
  3. [Sec. III and Sec. IV] Terms such as 'exactly reproduced', 'perfect overlaps', and 'exactly captures' are used throughout without quantified error metrics. Because the data are time traces compared against exact references, the authors should report at least a maximum absolute deviation or a time-averaged relative error for each benchmark case. In the 2D XYZ case, the conclusions acknowledge 'minor deviations', yet the text and Fig. 6 use 'exactly reproduces'; a quantitative error measure would resolve this inconsistency and make the robustness of the claims assessable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The tree notation (e.g., '32 → 16 → 4 → 1') is used before it is defined; please define the meaning of the arrows and the numbers explicitly, and distinguish SPF counts from physical site counts.
  2. [Fig. A.3] The caption and the figure contain a stray '22' that appears to be a leftover label; please remove it.
  3. [Appendix B] The DTWA formulas in Eqs. (B7)-(B9) present the cos-factor expressions without derivation; a brief justification or a citation to the original derivation would help the reader understand why DTWA captures the one-point but not the two-point Ising dynamics.
  4. [Title and abstract] The term 'ab initio' may overstate the method's character, since the results depend on the choice of tree structure and SPF truncation; consider replacing it with 'variational' or 'first-principles' with an explicit caveat about the controlled truncation.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, including inconsistent spacing in 'DTW A' and phrases like 'in the cases of α = 3, 6'; a careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are validated against external analytical and exact-diagonalization benchmarks, with no fitted parameters or self-referential predictions entering the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks rather than its own output. For the Ising and disordered Ising limits, ML-MCTDH results are compared to exact analytical solutions (Refs. 90, 91), and for the XYZ limit to exact diagonalization (Sec. III). No parameter is fitted to the target observables; the SPF counts and tree structures are fixed inputs chosen from the existing ML-MCTDH framework (Refs. 57-64) and listed in Appendix A. The only admitted deviations, in the disordered all-to-all Ising case (Sec. III, Fig. 3(a,d)), are explicitly attributed to insufficient time-dependent basis states and are discussed as a limitation, not relabeled as a prediction. The natural-population analysis (Fig. 4) is presented as a convergence diagnostic, and the paper itself acknowledges the need for more SPFs when populations do not decay, which is not a circular argument. Self-citations to prior methodological work by overlapping authors (e.g., Refs. 77-80, 89) appear as background and motivation, but they are not load-bearing: the validation of the current results rests on external analytical and ED benchmarks, and no claimed result is equivalent by construction to a cited result or to an input assumption. Thus no circular step meeting the specified evidentiary standard can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or fitted parameters are introduced. The central claim rests on external exact benchmarks and on manually chosen truncation parameters (SPF counts), whose adequacy is only partially verified.

free parameters (1)
  • Single-particle function (SPF) counts per tree structure = m = 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, or 22 depending on model
    Chosen by hand for each model and interaction range. No systematic convergence scans are shown, and the authors attribute deviations in the disordered alpha=0 case to insufficient SPFs (Sec. III, Fig. 4).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Dirac-Frenkel variational principle yields the correct equations of motion for the ML-MCTDH ansatz.
    Invoked in Sec. II A and Appendix A to derive the time evolution of expansion coefficients and SPFs.
  • domain assumption The analytical solutions for Ising dynamics from Refs. [90,91] are exact.
    Used as the benchmark for L=32 Ising chains and for 2D Ising lattices in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption Exact diagonalization results for L=16 XYZ and L=4x4 XYZ are converged references.
    Used as ground truth for XYZ benchmarks in the absence of analytical solutions (Sec. III).
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen binary tree structures span the physically relevant subspace for each model.
    Tree structures are selected per problem in Appendix A. There is no automated or quantitative criterion for sufficiency, and the text admits that insufficient SPFs cause deviations in the disordered alpha=0 case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab-Initio Approach to Many-Body Quantum Spin Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KWEKTCZQ

@misc{pith2026241113190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab-Initio Approach to Many-Body Quantum Spin Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KWEKTCZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13190}
}
read the original abstract

A fundamental longstanding problem in studying spin models is the efficient and accurate numerical simulation of the long-time behavior of larger systems. The exponential growth of the Hilbert space and the entanglement accumulation at long times pose major challenges for current methods. To address these issues, we employ the multilayer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree (ML-MCTDH) framework to simulate the many-body spin dynamics of the Heisenberg model in various settings, including the Ising and XYZ limits with different interaction ranges and random couplings. Benchmarks with analytical and exact numerical approaches show that ML-MCTDH accurately captures the time evolution of one- and two-body observables in both one- and two-dimensional lattices. A comparison with the discrete truncated Wigner approximation (DTWA) highlights that ML-MCTDH is particularly well-suited for handling anisotropic models and provides more reliable results for two-point observables across all tested cases. The behavior of the corresponding entanglement dynamics is analyzed to reveal the complexity of the quantum states. Our findings indicate that the rate of entanglement growth strongly depends on the interaction range and the presence of disorder. This particular relationship is then used to examine the convergence behavior of ML-MCTDH. Our results indicate that the multilayer structure of ML-MCTDH is a promising numerical framework for handling the dynamics of generic many-body spin systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the two-layer ML [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The dynamics of the Ising model in a 1D lattice of size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamics of the disordered Ising model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dynamics of the disordered Ising model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dynamics of the XYZ model with coupling strengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The dynamics of the 1D Ising model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. F. Newell and E. W. Montroll, On the theory of the ising model of ferromagnetism, Rev. Mod. Phys. 25, 353 (1953)

    1953

  2. [2]

    Kanamori, Magnetization Process in an Ising Spin System, Prog

    J. Kanamori, Magnetization Process in an Ising Spin System, Prog. Theor. Phys. 35, 16 (1966)

    1966

  3. [3]

    haldane gap

    M. Oshikawa, M. Yamanaka, and I. Affleck, Magneti- zation plateaus in spin chains: “haldane gap” for half- integer spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1984 (1997)

    1997

  4. [4]

    I. Y. Korenblit and E. F. Shender, Ferromagnetism of disordered systems, Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 21, 832 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    J. A. Kj¨ all, J. H. Bardarson, and F. Pollmann, Many- body localization in a disordered quantum ising chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 107204 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Cappellaro and M

    P. Cappellaro and M. D. Lukin, Quantum correlation in disordered spin systems: Applications to magnetic sensing, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032311 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Yoshida, Exotic topological order in fractal spin liq- uids, Phys

    B. Yoshida, Exotic topological order in fractal spin liq- uids, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125122 (2013)

    2013

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vish- wanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Prob- ing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simul...

    2021

  2. [10]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    C. H. Bennett and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum infor- mation and computation, Nature 404, 247 (2000). 13

    2000

  4. [12]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    Levy, Universal quantum computation with spin-1 /2 pairs and heisenberg exchange, Phys

    J. Levy, Universal quantum computation with spin-1 /2 pairs and heisenberg exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 147902 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Blaß and H

    B. Blaß and H. Rieger, Test of quantum thermalization in the two-dimensional transverse-field ising model, Sci. Rep. 6, 38185 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Mondaini, K

    R. Mondaini, K. R. Fratus, M. Srednicki, and M. Rigol, Eigenstate thermalization in the two-dimensional trans- verse field ising model, Phys. Rev. E 93, 032104 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    A. A. Zvyagin, Dynamical quantum phase transitions (Review Article), Low Temp. Phys. 42, 971 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group ve- locity of quantum spin systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 251 (1972)

    1972

  10. [18]

    Igl´ oi and H

    F. Igl´ oi and H. Rieger, Long-range correlations in the nonequilibrium quantum relaxation of a spin chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3233 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    Kaneko and I

    R. Kaneko and I. Danshita, Dynamics of correlation spreading in low-dimensional transverse-field ising mod- els, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023301 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Amico, A

    L. Amico, A. Osterloh, F. Plastina, R. Fazio, and G. Massimo Palma, Dynamics of entanglement in one- dimensional spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022304 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Maruyama, T

    K. Maruyama, T. Iitaka, and F. Nori, Enhancement of entanglement transfer in a spin chain by phase-shift con- trol, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012325 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    T. S. Cubitt, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Entangle- ment flow in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052308 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. Popp, and J. I. Cirac, Entanglement versus correlations in spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027901 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    T. J. Osborne and N. Linden, Propagation of quantum information through a spin system, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052315 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Bose, Quantum communication through an unmod- ulated spin chain, Phys

    S. Bose, Quantum communication through an unmod- ulated spin chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Giovannetti and R

    V. Giovannetti and R. Fazio, Information-capacity de- scription of spin-chain correlations, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032314 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Engineered two-dimensional ising inter- actions in a trapped-ion quantum simulator with hun- dreds of spins, Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin sys- tems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    N. Roy, A. Sharma, and R. Mukherjee, Quantum simu- lation of long-range xy quantum spin glass with strong area-law violation using trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052342 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    N. Roy, A. Sharma, and R. Mukherjee, Erratum: Quan- tum simulation of long-range xy quantum spin glass with strong area-law violation using trapped ions [phys. rev. a 99, 052342 (2019)], Phys. Rev. A 100, 059902 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr ` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models, Nature 534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Zeiher, J.-y

    J. Zeiher, J.-y. Choi, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Pohl, R. van Bijnen, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Coherent many-body spin dynamics in a long-range interacting ising chain, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041063 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Hollerith, K

    S. Hollerith, K. Srakaew, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, D. Adler, P. Weckesser, A. Kruckenhauser, V. Walther, R. van Bijnen, J. Rui, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realizing distance-selective interactions in a rydberg- dressed atom array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 113602 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Observation of dipolar spin-exchange interactions with lattice-confined polar molecules, Nature 501, 521 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    J.-R. Li, K. Matsuda, C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, W. G. Tobias, J. S. Higgins, and J. Ye, Tunable itinerant spin dynamics with polar molecules, Nature 614, 70 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Geier, N

    S. Geier, N. Thaicharoen, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, A. Salzinger, A. Tebben, D. Grimshandl, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Floquet hamiltonian engineering of an isolated many-body spin system, Science 374, 1149 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What lim- its the simulation of quantum computers?, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. J. Bremner, and H. J. Briegel, Quantum simulation of interacting high-dimensional systems: The influence of noise, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052325 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    W. W. Ho and D. A. Abanin, Entanglement dynamics in quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094302 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    S. R. White and A. E. Feiguin, Real-time evolution using the density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 076401 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollw¨ ock, and G. Vidal, Time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effective hilbert spaces, J. Stat. Mech. 2004, P04005 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent vari- ational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Koffel, M

    T. Koffel, M. Lewenstein, and L. Tagliacozzo, Entangle- 14 ment entropy for the long-range ising chain in a trans- verse field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267203 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and opti- mization with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many- body quantum spin dynamics with monte carlo trajec- tories on a discrete phase space, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Dy- namics of correlations in two-dimensional quantum spin models with long-range interactions: a phase-space monte-carlo study, New J. Phys. 17, 065009 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Kunimi, K

    M. Kunimi, K. Nagao, S. Goto, and I. Danshita, Perfor- mance evaluation of the discrete truncated wigner ap- proximation for quench dynamics of quantum spin sys- tems with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013060 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Khasseh, A

    R. Khasseh, A. Russomanno, M. Schmitt, M. Heyl, and R. Fazio, Discrete truncated wigner approach to dynam- ical phase transitions in ising models after a quantum quench, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014303 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Sundar, K

    B. Sundar, K. C. Wang, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Analysis of continuous and discrete wigner approximations for spin dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043627 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Shenoy, V

    V. Shenoy, V. D. Naik, W. Li, and R. Nath, Benchmark- ing discrete truncated wigner approximation and neural network quantum states with the exact dynamics in a rydberg atomic chain, Phys. Scr. 99, 065925 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Wang and M

    H. Wang and M. Thoss, Multilayer formulation of the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 1289 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Manthe, A multilayer multiconfigurational time- dependent Hartree approach for quantum dynamics on general potential energy surfaces, J

    U. Manthe, A multilayer multiconfigurational time- dependent Hartree approach for quantum dynamics on general potential energy surfaces, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 164116 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    H. Wang, D. E. Skinner, and M. Thoss, Calculation of reactive flux correlation functions for systems in a condensed phase environment: A multilayer multicon- figuration time-dependent Hartree approach, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 174502 (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    Wang and M

    H. Wang and M. Thoss, Quantum dynamical simulation of Electron-Transfer reactions in an anharmonic envi- ronment, J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 10369 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Kondov, M

    I. Kondov, M. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, C. Benesch, H. Wang, and M. Thoss, Quantum dynamics of photoinduced electron- transfer reactions in dye-semiconductor systems: First- principles description and application to coumarin 343- tio2, J. Phys. Chem. C 111, 11970 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    Meyer, U

    H.-D. Meyer, U. Manthe, and L. Cederbaum, The multi-configurational time-dependent hartree approach, Chem. Phys. Lett. 165, 73 (1990)

    1990

  55. [63]

    Manthe, H

    U. Manthe, H. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, Wave- packet dynamics within the multiconfiguration Hartree framework: General aspects and application to NOCl, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 3199 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    M. Beck, A. J¨ ackle, G. Worth, and H.-D. Meyer, The multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree (MCTDH) method: a highly efficient algorithm for propagating wavepackets, Phys. Rep. 324, 1 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    G. A. Worth, H. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, The ef- fect of a model environment on the S2 absorption spec- trum of pyrazine: A wave packet study treating all 24 vibrational modes, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 4412 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    Huarte-Larra˜ naga and U

    F. Huarte-Larra˜ naga and U. Manthe, Vibrational exci- tation in the transition state: The CH4+H →CH3+H2 reaction rate constant in an extended temperature in- terval, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 2863 (2002)

    2002

  59. [67]

    Wu, H.-J

    T. Wu, H.-J. Werner, and U. Manthe, First-Principles Theory for the H + CH4 → H2 + CH3 Reaction, Science 306, 2227 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, Role of excited states in the splitting of a trapped interacting bose-einstein condensate by a time-dependent barrier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 030402 (2007)

    2007

  61. [69]

    O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Mul- ticonfigurational time-dependent hartree method for bosons: Many-body dynamics of bosonic systems, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033613 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    Wang and M

    H. Wang and M. Thoss, Numerically exact quantum dynamics for indistinguishable particles: The multi- layer multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory in second quantization representation, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 024114 (2009)

    2009

  63. [71]

    Manthe and T

    U. Manthe and T. Weike, On the multi-layer multi- configurational time-dependent Hartree approach for bosons and fermions, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 064117 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Weike and U

    T. Weike and U. Manthe, The multi-configurational time-dependent Hartree approach in optimized second quantization: Imaginary time propagation and parti- cle number conservation, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 034101 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Niermann, H

    T. Niermann, H. Hoppe, and U. Manthe, A multi-layer multi-configurational time-dependent Hartree approach to lattice models beyond one dimension, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 134109 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Zanghellini, M

    J. Zanghellini, M. Kitzler, T. Brabec, and A. Scrinzi, Testing the multi-configuration time-dependent hartree–fock method, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37, 763 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    Caillat, J

    J. Caillat, J. Zanghellini, M. Kitzler, O. Koch, W. Kreuzer, and A. Scrinzi, Correlated multielectron systems in strong laser fields: A multiconfiguration time-dependent hartree-fock approach, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012712 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    Sasmal and O

    S. Sasmal and O. Vendrell, Non-adiabatic quantum dynamics without potential energy surfaces based on second-quantized electrons: Application within the framework of the MCTDH method, J. Chem. Phys.153, 154110 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    L. Cao, S. Kr¨ onke, O. Vendrell, and P. Schmelcher, The multi-layer multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree method for bosons: Theory, implementation, and appli- cations, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 134103 (2013)

    2013

  70. [78]

    Kr¨ onke, L

    S. Kr¨ onke, L. Cao, O. Vendrell, and P. Schmelcher, Non- equilibrium quantum dynamics of ultra-cold atomic mixtures: the multi-layer multi-configuration time- dependent hartree method for bosons, New J. Phys. 15, 063018 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    L. Cao, V. Bolsinger, S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Kouten- takis, S. Kr¨ onke, J. M. Schurer, and P. Schmelcher, A unified ab initio approach to the correlated quantum dynamics of ultracold fermionic and bosonic mixtures, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 044106 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    K¨ ohler, R

    F. K¨ ohler, R. Mukherjee, and P. Schmelcher, Exploring disordered quantum spin models with a multilayer mul- 15 ticonfigurational approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023135 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    N. Ng, S. Wenderoth, R. R. Seelam, E. Rabani, H.- D. Meyer, M. Thoss, and M. Kolodrubetz, Localization dynamics in a centrally coupled system, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134201 (2021)

    2021

  74. [82]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Note on exchange phenomena in the thomas atom, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 26, 376–385 (1930)

    1930

  75. [83]

    K. R. A. Hazzard, B. Gadway, M. Foss-Feig, B. Yan, S. A. Moses, J. P. Covey, N. Y. Yao, M. D. Lukin, J. Ye, D. S. Jin, and A. M. Rey, Many-body dynamics of dipo- lar molecules in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 195302 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Signoles, T

    A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G¨ arttner, S. Whitlock, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Glassy dy- namics in a disordered heisenberg quantum spin system, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011011 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2d antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of rydberg atoms, Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of mat- ter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    A. P. n. Orioli, A. Signoles, H. Wildhagen, G. G¨ unter, J. Berges, S. Whitlock, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Relaxation of an isolated dipolar-interacting rydberg quantum spin system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 063601 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Verresen, M

    R. Verresen, M. D. Lukin, and A. Vishwanath, Predic- tion of toric code topological order from rydberg block- ade, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031005 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    Zeybek, P

    Z. Zeybek, P. Schmelcher, and R. Mukherjee, Formation of rydberg crystals induced by quantum melting in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012009 (2025)

    2025

  82. [90]

    van den Worm, B

    M. van den Worm, B. C. Sawyer, J. J. Bollinger, and M. Kastner, Relaxation timescales and decay of corre- lations in a long-range interacting quantum simulator, New J. Phys. 15, 083007 (2013)

    2013

  83. [91]

    I. J. Lowe and R. E. Norberg, Free-induction decays in solids, Phys. Rev. 107, 46 (1957)

    1957

  84. [92]

    S. G. BRUSH, History of the lenz-ising model, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 883 (1967)

    1967

  85. [93]

    Jurcevic, B

    P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, C. Hempel, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quasiparticle en- gineering and entanglement propagation in a quantum many-body system, Nature 511, 202 (2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    Richerme, Z.-X

    P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Non-local propagation of correlations in quantum systems with long-range interactions, Nature 511, 198 (2014)

    2014

  87. [95]

    Porras and J

    D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Effective quantum spin sys- tems with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 207901 (2004)

    2004

  88. [96]

    Kim, M.-S

    K. Kim, M.-S. Chang, R. Islam, S. Korenblit, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Entanglement and tunable spin- spin couplings between trapped ions using multiple transverse modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 120502 (2009)

    2009

  89. [97]

    Islam, C

    R. Islam, C. Senko, W. C. Campbell, S. Korenblit, J. Smith, A. Lee, E. E. Edwards, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Emergence and frustration of magnetism with variable-range interactions in a quan- tum simulator, Science 340, 583 (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. M¨ uller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. B¨ uchler, A rydberg quantum simulator, Nat. Phys. 6, 382 (2010)

    2010

  91. [99]

    Schauß, J

    P. Schauß, J. Zeiher, T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, M. Che- neau, T. Macr ` ı, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Crys- tallization in ising quantum magnets, Science 347, 1455 (2015)

    2015

  92. [100]

    Lesanovsky, Many-body spin interactions and the ground state of a dense rydberg lattice gas, Phys

    I. Lesanovsky, Many-body spin interactions and the ground state of a dense rydberg lattice gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 025301 (2011)

    2011

  93. [101]

    Y. Song, M. Kim, H. Hwang, W. Lee, and J. Ahn, Quan- tum simulation of cayley-tree ising hamiltonians with three-dimensional rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013286 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    C. Luo, H. Zhang, A. Chu, C. Maruko, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Hamiltonian engineering of collective xyz spin models in an optical cavity, arXiv:2402.19429 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Miller, A

    C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, J. Lin, H. Hirzler, H. Gao, H. Zhou, M. D. Lukin, and J. Ye, Two-axis twisting using floquet-engineered xyz spin models with polar molecules, Nature 633, 332 (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    Kyriienko and A

    O. Kyriienko and A. S. Sørensen, Floquet quantum sim- ulation with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 064029 (2018)

    2018

  97. [105]

    Matsudaira, Ising ferromagnets with random impu- rities, J

    N. Matsudaira, Ising ferromagnets with random impu- rities, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 35, 1593 (1973)

    1973

  98. [106]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Boundary conformal field theory approach to the critical two-dimensional ising model with a defect line, Nucl. Phys. B 495, 533 (1997)

    1997

  99. [107]

    Frahm and A

    H. Frahm and A. A. Zvyagin, The open spin chain with impurity: an exact solution, J. Phys.: Condes. Matter 9, 9939 (1997)

    1997

  100. [108]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Two- dimensional magnetotransport in the extreme quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  101. [109]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum hall effect: An incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  102. [110]

    H. L. Stormer, Nobel lecture: The fractional quantum hall effect, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 875 (1999)

    1999

  103. [111]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  104. [112]

    strong area-law violation

    N. Roy and A. Sharma, Entanglement contour perspec- tive for “strong area-law violation” in a disordered long- range hopping model, Phys. Rev. B 97, 125116 (2018)

    2018

  105. [113]

    Popkov and M

    V. Popkov and M. Salerno, Logarithmic divergence of the block entanglement entropy for the ferromagnetic heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012301 (2005)

    2005

  106. [114]

    A. S. Buyskikh, M. Fagotti, J. Schachenmayer, F. Essler, and A. J. Daley, Entanglement growth and correlation spreading with variable-range interactions in spin and fermionic tunneling models, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053620 (2016)

    2016

  107. [115]

    Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat

    R. Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019)

    2019

  108. [116]

    Vitagliano, A

    G. Vitagliano, A. Riera, and J. I. Latorre, Volume-law scaling for the entanglement entropy in spin-1/2 chains, New J. Phys. 12, 113049 (2010). 16

    2010

  109. [117]

    Refael and J

    G. Refael and J. E. Moore, Entanglement entropy of random quantum critical points in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 260602 (2004)

    2004

  110. [118]

    Turkeshi, P

    X. Turkeshi, P. Ruggiero, V. Alba, and P. Calabrese, Entanglement equipartition in critical random spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014455 (2020)

    2020

  111. [119]

    Singh, R

    R. Singh, R. Moessner, and D. Roy, Effect of long- range hopping and interactions on entanglement dy- namics and many-body localization, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094205 (2017)

    2017

  112. [120]

    Pucci, A

    L. Pucci, A. Roy, and M. Kastner, Simulation of quantum spin dynamics by phase space sampling of bogoliubov-born-green-kirkwood-yvon trajectories, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174302 (2016)

    2016

  113. [121]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, J. Stat. Mech. 2005, P04010 (2005)

    2005

  114. [122]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, K. G. H. Vollbrecht, and J. I. Cirac, On entropy growth and the hardness of simulat- ing time evolution, New J. Phys. 10, 033032 (2008)

    2008

  115. [123]

    T. J. Osborne, Efficient approximation of the dynamics of one-dimensional quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 157202 (2006)

    2006

  116. [124]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Entropy scaling and simulability by matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008)

    2008

  117. [125]

    F. H. L. Essler and M. Fagotti, Quench dynamics and relaxation in isolated integrable quantum spin chains, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 064002 (2016)

    2016

  118. [126]

    Guardado-Sanchez, P

    E. Guardado-Sanchez, P. T. Brown, D. Mitra, T. De- vakul, D. A. Huse, P. Schauß, and W. S. Bakr, Probing the quench dynamics of antiferromagnetic correlations in a 2d quantum ising spin system, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021069 (2018)

    2018

  119. [127]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Ven- galattore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  120. [128]

    Gogolin and J

    C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 056001 (2016)

    2016

  121. [129]

    Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a re- view, Rep

    M. Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  122. [130]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Van Damme, L. Guo, J. Lang, and P. Hauke, Dynamical phase transitions in quantum spin models with antiferromagnetic long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115133 (2021)

    2021

  123. [131]

    Mendive-Tapia and H.-D

    D. Mendive-Tapia and H.-D. Meyer, Regularizing the MCTDH equations of motion through an optimal choice on-the-fly (i.e., spawning) of unoccupied single-particle functions, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 234114 (2020)

    2020

  124. [132]

    H. R. Larsson, Computing vibrational eigenstates with tree tensor network states (TTNS), J. Chem. Phys.151, 204102 (2019)

    2019

  125. [133]

    Shi, L.-M

    Y.-Y. Shi, L.-M. Duan, and G. Vidal, Classical simula- tion of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022320 (2006)

    2006

  126. [134]

    H. R. Larsson, A tensor network view of multilayer mul- ticonfiguration time-dependent hartree methods, Mol. Phys. 122, e2306881 (2024)

    2024

  127. [135]

    W. Li, J. Ren, H. Yang, H. Wang, and Z. Shuai, Op- timal tree tensor network operators for tensor network simulations: Applications to open quantum systems, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 054116 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.